Allowed

Mr Devappa Nayak v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2022CRL.P/8095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused under IPC 306 r/w 34 for alleged abetment to suicide of a colleague. The court doubted the genuineness of the death note due to inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and terminated employment prior to suicide scene.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in event of arrest on executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, jurisdiction leave and court attendance.

Mr Devappa Nayak Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8095 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. DEVAPPA NAYAK S/O HANUMANTHAPPA N AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC: PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR SAAHAS NGO, RAMANAGARA R/AT: 138, JAMBOO SAVAARI DINNE NEAR JAMBOO SAVAARI DINNE WATER TANK, 1ST CROSS ROAD, GOTTIGERE BANGALORE-560 076.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH.B.MUCHANDI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-572111 REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.181/2022 OF CHANNAPATNA RURAL P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN) AND JMFC, CHANNAPATANA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.181/2022 of Channapatna, Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

¶20

learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

¶22

that the deceased Sri. K.C.Nanjundegowda was working as a Field Supervisor in Saahas NGO and the petitioner is a coordinator. It is also alleged that on 31.05.2022 he committed suicide by hanging himself and when the

¶23

¶24

petitioner got information he went to the spot and subsequently dead body was cremated. Five days later, the owner of the house has asked the complainant to vacate the house occupied by the deceased by taking away the belongings and then when they were shifting, they found a death note, wherein certain allegations were made against the present petitioner and others regarding harassment while working. On the basis of the death note the complainant lodged a complaint on 23.06.2022 and case came to be registered.

¶25

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

On going through the records and after hearing the rival contentions it is evident that the deceased was working as a Field Supervisor (NGO) by name Saahas. It is also evident that the present petitioner was a coordinator. In the death note it is simply alleged that the deceased

¶27

¶28

was harassed by the higher officers at the work place. However, in this regard the learned counsel for petitioner has invited the attention to Annexure-E which is a notice issued to the deceased on 01.04.2022 reporting his unbecoming of a employee as while working on duty consumption of alcohol and rude behaviors, absence from the duties etc. Annexure-F is the reply issued by the deceased which disclose that, the deceased had admitted that he has not completed data, data format in time and was regularly obtained leave because of his ill-health and undertook to be prompt in discharging his duty. However, it is alleged that he continued his misbehavior and as such as per Annexure-G by letter dated 13.05.2022 his services were terminated.

¶29

The deceased has said to have committed suicide on 31.05.2022 in a rented house by hanging himself. The records disclose that he was terminated on 13.05.2022 and almost after 17 days he committed suicide. Apart from that he never challenged his termination order before a

¶30

¶31

competent forum. On the contrary it is alleged that he left a death note.

¶32

Apart from that the suicide was committed on 31.05.2022 and as per the case of the prosecution the owner of the tenement requested the complainant to vacate the premises within five days. In that event in one week the complainant ought to have vacated the premises and he claims to have traced the death note. However, the complaint was filed on 23.06.2022 and there is a inordinate delay of more than 15 days in lodging the complaint, which is not properly explained.

¶33

Further, though allegations are made in the death note, the genuineness of the death note is required to be established. The deceased was already terminated and it is evident that he was not attentive towards his duty. Under such circumstances, the action on behalf of the petitioner cannot be said to be abatement or instigation so as to commit the offence. The relationship was that of superior and subordinate employee and a complaint appears to

¶34

¶35

have been lodged after belatedly with an intention to have unlawful gain of the situation.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also

¶37

placed reliance on three citations as under.

¶38

1. VaijnathKondibaKhandke vs State of Maharashtra and Another (2018) 7 SCC 781.

¶39

2. Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat and Another (2010) 8 SCC 628.

¶40

3. Rajesh vs State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359.

¶41

Looking these facts and circumstances, I do not

¶42

find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass following:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed .

¶45

¶46

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.181/2022 in Channapatna, Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO; subject to following conditions:-

¶47

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶48

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶49

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

¶50

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.

¶51

¶52

(v) The petitioner shall himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.

¶53

(vi) The Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on every first Monday of the month till the final report is submitted.

¶54

(vii) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release him on bail as directed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Mr Devappa Nayak v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Devappa Nayak v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mohammad Ajinas .v.M. Vs the State by

Sourabh Mestri Vs State of Karnataka

M C Rasvishankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Arun Alias Delhi Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Rouf Vs the State of Karnataka

Hemanth B Vs the State of Karnataka